Rich, I do wish you would check things because you put it everywhere. Pat
Thomas does have impeccable credentials, but the one you wrote about is not
the one who wrote the article in the Ecologist. Pat has written around 25
books. She came to the UK as a teenager. In fact, she even was associate
editor at What Doctors Don't Tell You and editor of its sister publication
Proof! And she has been writing about health for more than 10 years. Most
of her books have been translated into multiple languages. She is an
incredible writer.

Betty

http://www.wddty.co.uk/cms/content.asp?pageid=home

What Doctors Don't Tell You is one of the few information services that can
justifiably claim to solve people's health problems - and even save lives.We
tell you in plain language what works, what doesn't and what may harm you in
both orthodox and alternative medicine so that you can make informed
choices.Our information is available as an in-depth monthly subscription
health bulletin, as a series of books, manuals and CDs, and as a searchable
information database. We also provide a free e-mail news service.

Aspartame - COVER STORY
Once on the list of potential Pentagon bioweapons... associated with cancer
and neurological disorders... banned for years until a firm run by Donald
Rumsfeld lobbied his contacts in Washington to get it legalised... and
probably consumed by you within the last 24 hours.

Life after Aspartame - COVER STORY
Like Aspartame, artificial sweetener Sucralose is apparently 'safe'. So why
is Tate & Lyle so keen to suppress any criticism of it?

http://www.wnho.net/the_ecologist_aspartame_report.htm

Aspartame-- the shocking story of the world's bestselling sweetener
The Ecologist by Pat Thomas pat@theecologist.org

Aspartame is the most controversial food additive in history.
The most recent evidence, linking it to leukaemia and lymphoma,
has added substantial fuel to the ongoing protests of doctors, scientists
and consumer groups who allege that this artificial sweetener should never
have been released onto the market
and that allowing it to remain in the food chain is killing us by degrees.

Pat Thomas reports:

Once upon a time, aspartame was listed by the Pentagon as a biochemical
warfare agent.
Today it's an integral part of the modern diet.
Sold commercially under names like NutraSweet and Canderel,
aspartame can be found in more than 5,000 foods,
including fizzy drinks, chewing gum, table-top sweeteners, diet and diabetic
foods, breakfast cereals, jams, sweets, vitamins, prescription and
over-the-counter drugs. This means that there is a good chance that you and
your family are among the two thirds of the adult population and 40 per cent
of children who regularly ingest this artificial sweetener.

Because it contains no calories,
aspartame is considered a boon to health-conscious individuals everywhere;
and most of us, if we think about it at all, think it is safe.

Concerns over aspartame's toxicity meant that for eight years,
the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) denied it approval,
effectively keeping it off the world market.
This caution was based on compelling evidence,
brought to light by numerous eminent scientists, litigators and consumer
groups, that aspartame contributed to serious central nervous system damage
and had been shown to cause cancer in animals.
Eventually, however, political muscle, won out over scientific rigour, and
aspartame was approved for use in 1981 (see timeline for details).
The FDA's about-turn opened the floodgates for aspartame's swift approval by
more than 70 regulatory authorities around the world.
But, as the remarkable history of the sweetener shows,
the clean bill of health given to it by government regulators --
whose raison d'être should be to protect the public from harm --
is simply not worth the paper it is printed on.

DECEMBER 1965

While working on an ulcer drug, a chemist at pharmaceutical manufacturer GD
Searle accidentally discovers aspartame, a substance that is 180 times
sweeter than sugar, yet has no calories.

SPRING 1967

Searle begins safety tests, necessary for FDA approval.

AUTUMN 1967

GD Searle approaches eminent biochemist Dr Harry Waisman,
director of the University of Wisconsin's Joseph P Kennedy Jr Memorial
Laboratory of Mental Retardation Research and a respected expert in the
toxicity of phenylalanine (which comprises 50 per cent of the aspartame
formula), to conduct a study of the effects of aspartame on primates.
Of seven monkeys fed aspartame mixed with milk,
one dies and five others have grand mal epileptic seizures.

SPRING 1971

Dr John Olney, professor of neuropathology and psychiatry at Washington
University in St Louis School of Medicine,
whose research into the neurotoxic food additive monosodium glutamate
(MSG, a chemical cousin of aspartame)
was responsible for having it removed from baby foods,
informs Searle that his studies show that aspartic acid,
one of the main constituents of aspartame,
causes holes in the brains of infant mice.
One of Searle's researchers, Ann Reynolds,
confirms Olney's findings in a similar study.

FEBRUARY 1973

Searle applies for FDA approval and submits over 100 studies it claims
support aspartame's safety.
Neither the dead monkeys nor the mice with holes in their brains are
included in the submission.

12 SEPTEMBER 1973

In a memorandum, Dr Martha M Freeman of the FDA Division of Metabolic
and Endocrine Drug Products criticises the inadequacy of the information
submitted by Searle with particular regard to one of the compound's toxic
breakdown products, diketopiperazine (DKP).
She recommends that marketing of aspartame be contingent upon the
sweetener's proven clinical safety.

26 JULY 1974

FDA commissioner Dr Alexander Schmidt grants aspartame its first approval as
a 'food additive' for restricted use in dry foods.
This approval comes despite the fact that his own scientists found serious
deficiencies in the data submitted by Searle.

AUGUST 1974

Before aspartame can reach the marketplace,
Dr John Olney, James Turner
(attorney, consumer advocate and former 'Nader's Raider'
who was instrumental in removing the artificial sweetener cyclamate from the
US market),
and the group Label Inc (Legal Action for Buyers' Education and Labeling)
file a formal objection to aspartame's approval with the FDA,
citing evidence that it could cause brain damage, particularly in children.

JULY 1975

Concerns about the accuracy of test data submitted to the FDA by Searle for
a wide range of products prompt Schmidt to appoint a special task force to
examine irregularities in 25 key studies for aspartame and Searle drugs
Flagyl, Aldactone and Norpace.

5 DECEMBER 1975

Searle agrees to an inquiry into aspartame safety concerns.
Searle withdraws aspartame from the market pending its results.
The sweetener remains off the market for nearly 10 years while
investigations into its safety and into Searle's alleged fraudulent testing
procedures are ongoing.

The final report notes faulty and fraudulent product testing,
knowingly misrepresented product testing,
knowingly misrepresented and 'manipulated' test data,
and instances of irrelevant animal research in all the products reviewed.

The FDA forms a new task force,
headed by veteran inspector Jerome Bressler,
to further investigate irregularities in Searle's aspartame studies
uncovered by the original task force.
The findings of the new body will eventually be incorporated into a document
known as the Bressler Report.

This is the first time in the FDA's history that it requests a criminal
investigation of a manufacturer.

26 JANUARY 1977

While the grand jury investigation is underway,
Sidley & Austin, the law firm representing Searle,
begins recruitment negotiations with Samuel Skinner,
the US attorney in charge of the investigation.
Skinner removes himself form the investigation
and the case is passed to William Conlon.

8 MARCH 1977

Searle hires prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld as its new CEO
to try to turn the beleaguered company around.
A former member of Congress and defence secretary in the Ford
administration, Rumsfeld brings several of his Washington colleagues in as
top management.

1 JULY 1977

Samuel Skinner leaves the US Attorney's office
and takes a job with Searle's law firm. Conlon takes over Skinner's old job.

1 AUGUST 1977

The Bressler Report is released.
It focuses on three key aspartame studies conducted by Searle.

The report finds that in one study 98 of the 196 animals died but weren't
autopsied until later dates, making it impossible to ascertain the actual
cause of death.

Tumours were removed from live animals
and the animals placed back in the study.

Many other errors and inconsistencies are noted.
For example, a rat was reported alive, then dead, then alive, then dead
again.

Bressler comments:
'The question you have got to ask yourself is:
why wasn't greater care taken?
Why didn't Searle, with their scientists, closely evaluate this,
knowing full well that the whole society, from the youngest to the elderly,
from the sick to the unsick, will have access to this product.'

The FDA creates yet another task force to review the Bressler Report.
The review is carried out by a team at the FDA's Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition and headed by senior scientist Jacqueline Verrett.

28 SEPTEMBER 1977

The FDA publishes a report exonerating Searle of any wrongdoing in its
testing procedures.
Jacqueline Verrett will later testify to the US Senate that her team was
pressured into validating data from experiments that were clearly a
'disaster'.

8 DECEMBER 1977

Despite complaints from the Justice Department,
Conlon stalls the grand jury prosecution for so long that the statute of
limitations on the aspartame charges runs out
and the investigation is dropped.

Just over a year later Conlon joins Searle's law firm, Sidley & Austin.

1978

The journal Medical World News reports that the methanol content of
aspartame is 1,000 times greater than most foods under FDA control.
In high concentrations methanol, or wood alcohol, is a lethal poison.

1 JUNE 1979

The FDA finally establishes a public board of inquiry (PBOI),
comprising three scientists whose job it is to review the objections of
Olney and Turner to the approval of aspartame and rule on safety issues
surrounding the sweetener.

1979

In spite of the uncertainties over aspartame's safety in the US,
aspartame becomes available, primarily in pharmaceutical products, in
France.
It is sold under the brand name Canderel and manufactured by the food
corporation Merisant.

30 SEPTEMBER 1980

The FDA's PBOI votes unanimously against aspartame's approval, pending
further investigations of brain tumours in animals.
The board says it 'has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty
that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive'.

1980

Canderel is now marketed throughout much of Europe (but not in the UK) as a
low-calorie sweetener.

JANUARY 1981

Rumsfeld states in a Searle sales meeting that he is going to make a big
push to get aspartame approved within the year.
Rumsfeld vows to 'call in his markers' and use political rather than
scientific means to get the FDA on side.

20 JANUARY 1981

Ronald Reagan is sworn in as president of the US.
Reagan's transition team, which includes Rumsfeld,
nominates Dr Arthur Hull Hayes Jr to be the new FDA commissioner.

21 JANUARY 1981

One day after Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applies to the FDA for
approval to use aspartame as a food sweetener.

MARCH 1981

An FDA commissioner's panel is established to review issues
raised by the PBOI.

19 MAY 1981

Arthur Hull Hayes Jr, appoints a five-person commission to review the PBOI's
decision.
Three of the five FDA scientists on it advise against approval of aspartame,
stating on the record that Searle's tests are unreliable and not adequate to
determine the safety of aspartame.
Hayes installs a sixth member on the commission,
and the vote becomes deadlocked.

15 JULY 1981

Hayes ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team,
overrules the PBOI findings and gives initial approval for aspartame to be
used in dry products on the basis that it has been shown to be safe for its
proposed uses.

22 OCTOBER 1981

The FDA approves aspartame as a tabletop sweetener and for use in tablets,
breakfast cereals, chewing gum, dry bases for beverages, instant coffee and
tea, gelatines, puddings, fillings, dairy-product toppings and as a flavour
enhancer for chewing gum.

1982

The aspartame-based sweetener Equal, manufactured by Merisant, is launched
in the US.

15 OCTOBER 1982

The FDA announces that Searle has filed a petition for aspartame to be
approved as a sweetener in carbonated beverages, children's vitamins and
other liquids.

1983

Searle attorney Robert Shapiro gives aspartame its commercial name,
NutraSweet.
The name is trademarked the following year.
Shapiro later becomes president of Searle.
He eventually becomes president and then chairman and CEO of Monsanto,
which will buy Searle in 1985.

8 JULY 1983

Aspartame is approved for use in carbonated beverages and syrup bases in the
US and, three months later, Britain.
Before the end of the year Canderel tablets are launched in the UK.
Granular Canderel follows in 1985.

8 AUGUST 1983

James Turner, on behalf of himself and the Community Nutrition Institute,
and Dr Woodrow Monte, Arizona State University's director of food science
and nutritional laboratories,
file petitions with the FDA objecting to aspartame approval based on
possible serious adverse effects from the chronic intake of the sweetener.
Monet also cites concern about the chronic intake of methanol associated
with aspartame ingestion.

SEPTEMBER 1983

Hayes resigns as FDA commissioner under a cloud of controversy about his
taking unauthorised rides aboard a General Foods jet (General Foods was and
is a major purchaser of aspartame).
He serves briefly as provost at New York Medical College,
and then takes a position as senior scientific consultant with
Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Searle and
Monsanto.

AUTUMN 1983

The first carbonated beverages containing aspartame go on sale in the US.

17 FEBRUARY 1984

The FDA denies Turner and Monte's requests for a hearing,
noting that aspartame's critics had not presented any unresolved safety
questions. Regarding aspartame's breakdown components,
the FDA says that it has reviewed animal, clinical and consumption studies
submitted by the sweetener's manufacturer,
as well as the existing body of scientific data,
and concludes that 'the studies demonstrated the safety of these
components'.

MARCH 1984

Public complaints about the adverse effects of aspartame begin to come in.
The FDA requests that the US agency the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) begins investigations of a select number of cases of
adverse reactions to aspartame.

30 MAY 1984

The FDA approves aspartame for use in multivitamins.

JULY 1984

A study by the state of Arizona Department of Health into aspartame is
published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition.
It determines that soft drinks stored at elevated temperatures promote more
rapid deterioration of aspartame into poisonous methanol.

The US Supreme Court,
headed by Justice Clarence Thomas,
a former Monsanto attorney,
refuses to consider arguments
from the Community Nutrition Institute and other consumer groups that the
FDA has not followed proper procedures in approving aspartame, and that the
liquid form of the artificial sweetener may cause brain damage in heavy
users of low-calorie soft drinks.

16 OCTOBER 1986

Turner files another citizen's petition,
this time concerning the risk of seizures and eye damage from aspartame.
The petition argues that medical records of 140 aspartame users show them to
have suffered from epileptic seizures and eye damage after consuming
products containing the sweetener and that the FDA should ban aspartame as
an 'imminent hazard to the public health'.

21 NOVEMBER 1986

The FDA denies Turner's new petition, saying:

'The data and information supporting the safety of aspartame are extensive.
It is likely that no food product has ever been so closely examined for
safety. Moreover, the decisions of the agency to approve aspartame for its
uses have been given the fullest airing that the legal process requires.'

The FDA declares aspartame safe for use as an inactive ingredient,
provided labelling meets certain specifications.

1987

An FDA report on adverse reactions associated with aspartame states the
majority of the complaints about aspartame -- now numbering 3,133 -- refer
to neurological effects.

2 JANUARY 1987

NutraSweet's aspartame patent runs out in Europe, Canada and Japan.
More companies are now free to produce aspartame sweeteners in these
countries.

12 OCTOBER 1987

United Press International, a leading global news-syndication organisation,
reports that more than 10 federal officials involved in the decision to
approve aspartame have now taken jobs in the private sector that are linked
to the aspartame industry.

3 NOVEMBER 1987

A US Senate hearing is held to address the issue of aspartame safety and
labelling. The hearing reviews the faulty testing procedures and the
'psychological strategy' used by Searle to help ensure aspartame's approval.
Other information that comes to light includes the fact that aspartame was
once on a Pentagon list of prospective biochemical-warfare weapons.

Numerous medical and scientific experts testify as to the toxicity of
aspartame.

Among them is Dr Verrett, who reveals that, while compiling its 1977 report,
her team was instructed not to comment on or be concerned with the overall
validity of the studies.
She states that questions about birth defects have not been answered.
She also states that increasing the temperature of the product leads to an
increase in production of DKP,
a substance shown to increase uterine polyps and change blood cholesterol
levels.

Verrett comments: 'It was pretty obvious that somewhere along the line, the
bureau officials were working up to a whitewash.'

1989

The FDA has received more than 4,000 complaints from consumers about
adverse reactions to the sweetener.

The Guardian publishes a major investigation of aspartame and delivers to
government officials 'a dossier of evidence' that draws heavily on the
transcripts of the Bressler Report and demands that the government review
the safety of aspartame. No review is undertaken. The Guardian is taken to
court by Monsanto and forced to apologise for printing its story.

1991

The US National Institutes of Health publishes Adverse Effects of Aspartame:
January '86 through December '90, a bibliography of 167 studies documenting
adverse effects associated with aspartame.

1992

NutraSweet signs agreements with Coca-Cola and Pepsi stipulating that it is
their preferred supplier of aspartame.

30 JANUARY 1992

The FDA approves aspartame for use in malt beverages, breakfast cereals, and
refrigerated puddings and fillings and in bulk form (in large packages like
sugar) for tabletop use. NutraSweet markets these bulk products under the
name 'NutraSweet Spoonful'.

14 DECEMBER 1992

NutraSweet's US patent for aspartame expires, opening up the market for
other companies to produce the substance.

19 APRIL 1993

The FDA approves aspartame for use in hard and soft candies, non-alcoholic
flavoured beverages, tea beverages, fruit juices and concentrates, baked
goods and baking mixes, and frostings, toppings and fillings for baked
goods.

28 FEBRUARY 1994

Aspartame now accounts for the majority (75 per cent) of all the complaints
in the US adverse-reaction monitoring system.
The US Department of Health and Human Services compiles a report that
brings together all current information on adverse reactions attributed
to aspartame.
It lists 6,888 complaints, including 649 reported by the CDC
and 1,305 reported by the FDA.

APRIL 1995

Consumer activist, and founder of anti-aspartame group Mission Possible,
Betty Martini uses the US's Freedom of Information Act
to force the FDA to release an official list of adverse effects
associated with aspartame ingestion.

Culled from 10,000 consumer complaints, the list includes four
deaths and more than 90 unique symptoms, a majority of which are connected
to impaired neurological function.
They include: headache; dizziness or problems with balance;
mood change; vomiting and nausea; seizures and convulsions;
memory loss; tremors; muscle weakness; abdominal pains and
cramps; change in vision; diarrhoea; fatigue and weakness; skin rashes;
deteriorating vision; joint and musculoskeletal pain.

By the FDA's own admission, fewer then 1 per cent of those
who have problems with something they consume ever report it to the FDA.
This means that around 1 million people could have been experiencing adverse
effects from ingesting aspartame.

12 JUNE 1995

The FDA announces it has no further plans to continue to collect adverse
reaction reports or monitor research on aspartame.

27 JUNE 1996

The FDA removes all restrictions from aspartame use, and approves it as a
general-purpose sweetener', meaning that aspartame can now be used in any
food or beverage.

NOVEMBER 1996

Drawing on data compiled by the US National Cancer Institute's Surveillance,
Epidemiology and End Results programme, which collects and distributes data
on all types of cancer, Olney publishes peer-reviewed research in the
Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology.

It shows that brain-tumour rates have risen in line with
aspartame consumption
and that there has been a significant increase
in the conversion of less deadly tumours into much more deadly ones.

DECEMBER 1996

The results of a remarkable study conducted by Dr Ralph G Walton, professor
of clinical psychology at Northeastern Ohio Universities, are revealed.

Commissioned by the hard-hitting US national news programme 60 Minutes, it
sheds some light on the absurdity of aspartame-safety studies.

Walton reviewed 165 separate studies published in the preceding 20 years in
peer-reviewed medical journals.

Seventy-four of the studies were industry-funded, all of which attested to
aspartame's safety.

Six of the seven non-industry funded studies that were favourable to
aspartame were from the FDA, which has a public record of strong
pro-industry bias.

To this day, the industry-funded studies are the ones that are always quoted
to the press and in official rebuttals to aspartame critics.

They are also the studies given the greatest weight
during the approval process and in official safety reviews.

10 FEBRUARY 1998

Monsanto petitions the FDA for approval of a new tabletop sweetener called
Neotame. It is around 60 times sweeter than aspartame and up to 13,000
times sweeter than sugar.
Neotame is less prone to breaking down in heat and in liquids than aspartame
because of the addition of 3,3-dimethylbutyl, a poorly studied chemical with
suspected neurotoxic effects.
Strengthening the bond between aspartame's main constituents eliminates the
need for a health warning directed at people suffering from PKU.

13 MAY 1998

Independent scientists from the University of Barcelona publish a landmark
study clearly showing that aspartame is transformed into formaldehyde in the
bodies of living specimens (in this case rats),
and that this formaldehyde spreads throughout the specimens' vital organs,
including the liver, kidneys, eyes and brain.

The results fly in the face of manufacturers' claims that aspartame does not
break down into formaldehyde in the body, and bolster the claims of
aspartame critics that many of the symptoms associated with aspartame
toxicity are caused by the poisonous and cumulative effects of formaldehyde.

OCTOBER 1998

The UK's Food Commission publishes two surveys on sweeteners.

The first shows that several leading companies,
including St Ivel, Müller and Sainsbury's,
have ignored the legal requirement to state 'with sweeteners'
next to the name of the product.

The second reveals that aspartame not only appears in 'no-sugar added'
and 'light' beverages but also in ordinary non-dietetic drinks because it's
three times cheaper than ordinary sugar.

8 FEBRUARY 1999

Monsanto files a petition with the FDA for approval of the general use of
Neotame.

20 JUNE 1999

An investigation by The Independent on Sunday reveals that aspartame is made
using a genetic engineering process.
Aspartame component phenylalanine is naturally produced by bacteria.
The newspaper reveals that Monsanto has genetically engineered the bacteria
to make them produce more phenylalanine.
Monsanto claims that the process had not been revealed previously
because no modified DNA remains in the finished product,
and insists that the product is completely safe;
though scientists counter that toxic effects
cannot be ruled out in the absence of long-term studies.
A Monsanto spokeswoman says that while aspartame for the US market
is often made using genetic engineering,
aspartame supplied to British food producers is not.
The extent to which US brands of low-calorie products containing
genetically engineered aspartame have been imported into Britain is unclear.

MAY 2000

Monsanto, under pressure -- not least from the worldwide resistance to
genetically manipulated food and ongoing lawsuits --
sells NutraSweet to JW Childs Associates, a private-equity firm comprised of
several former Monsanto managers, for $440 m.
Monsanto also sells its equity interest in two European sweetener joint
ventures, NutraSweet AG and Euro-Aspartame SA.

10 DECEMBER 2001

The UK's Food Standards Agency requests that the European Commission
Scientific Committee on Food conducts an updated review of aspartame.
The committee is asked to look carefully at more than 500 scientific papers
published between 1988 and 2000 and any other new scientific research not
examined previously.

9 JULY 2002

The FDA approves the tabletop and general use of Neotame.
The 'fast-track' approval raises eyebrows because, historically,
the FDA takes at least 10 years to approve food additives.

Neotame is also approved for use in Australia and New Zealand,
but has yet to be approved in the UK.

10 DECEMBER 2002

The European Commission Scientific Committee on Food publishes its final
report on aspartame.

The 24-page report largely ignores independent research and consumer
complaints, relying instead on frequently cited articles in books and reviews
put together by employees or consultants of aspartame manufacturers.

When independent research is cited,
it is generally refuted with industry-sponsored data.

An animal study showing aspartame's disruption of brain chemistry,
a human study linking aspartame to neurophysiological changes that could
increase seizure risk,
another linking aspartame use with depression in individuals susceptible
to mood disorder,
and two others linking aspartame ingestion with headaches
are all dismissed.

The report's conclusion amounts to a single sentence:
'The committee concluded that.there is no evidence to suggest that
there is a need to revise the outcome
of the earlier risk assessment or the [acceptance daily intake]
previously established for aspartame.'

As with the FDA, there are concerns about the neutrality of some of the
committee's members and their links with the International Life Sciences
Institute (ILSI), an industry group that funds,
among other things, research into aspartame.
ILSI members include Monsanto, Coca-Cola and Pepsi.

19 FEBRUARY 2003

Members of the European Parliament's
Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy Committee
approve the use of sucralose (see page 50) and an
aspartame-acesulfame salt compound (manufactured in Europe by the
aspartame-producing Holland Sweetener Company and sold under the name
Twinsweet), agreeing to review of the use of both in three years' time.

At the same time, a request by European greens
that the committee re-evaluate the safety of aspartame
and improve the labelling of aspartame-containing products is rejected.

MAY 2004

The feature-length documentary Sweet Misery is released on DVD (see
http://www.soundandfuryproductions.com).
Part-documentary, part-detective story, it includes interviews with people
who have been harmed by aspartame, as well as credible testimony
from advocates, doctors, lawyers and long-time campaigners,
including James Turner, HJ Roberts and renowned neurosurgeon
Dr Russell Blaylock. UK orders: Namaste Publishing,
info@namastepublishing.co.uk

SEPTEMBER 2004

US consumer group the National Justice League files a $350 m class action
lawsuit against the NutraSweet Corporation (the current owner of aspartame
products), the American Diabetes Association and Monsanto. Some 50 other
defendants have yet to be named, but mentioned throughout the lawsuit is the
central role of Donald Rumsfeld in helping to get aspartame approved through
the FDA. The plaintiffs maintain that this litigation will prove how deadly
aspartame is when it is consumed by humans. Little progress has been made so
far in bringing the action to court. [ The suits, claimed by conmen, were
phoney. ]

The NutraSweet Company reopens its plant in Atlanta, Georgia, (dormant since
2003) in order to meet increased demand for its sweetener.
Aspartame, sold commercially as
NutraSweet, Equal, Equal-Measure, Spoonful, Canderel and Benevia,
is currently available in more than 100 countries and
used in more than 5,000 products by at least 250 million people every day.
Worldwide, the aspartame industry's sales amount to more than $1 billion
yearly.
The US is the primary consumer.

JULY 2005

The Ramizzini Institute in Bologna, a non-profit, private institution set up
to research the causes of cancer, releases the results of a very large,
long-term animal study into aspartame ingestion.
Its study shows that aspartame causes lymphomas and leukaemia in
female animals fed aspartame
at doses around 20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight,
or around half the accepted daily intake for humans.
[ Also, rats are as much as 20 times more resistant
to methanol (formaldehyde) toxicity as humans. ]

Page 47

ASPARTAME REACTIONS: A HIDDEN EPIDEMIC
Aspartame has been linked to a host of devastating central nervous system
disorders

When aspartame was approved for use, Dr HJ Roberts, director of the Palm
Beach Institute for Medical Research, had no reason to doubt the FDA's
decision. 'But my attitude changed,' he says, 'after repeatedly
encountering serious reactions in my patients that seemed
justifiably linked to aspartame.'
Twenty years on, Roberts has coined the phrase 'aspartame
disease' to describe the wide range of adverse effects he has seen among
aspartame-guzzling patients.

He estimates: 'Hundreds of thousands of consumers, more likely millions,
currently suffer major reactions to products containing aspartame.
Today, every physician probably encounters aspartame disease
in everyday practice, especially among patients with illnesses
that are undiagnosed or difficult to treat.'

As a guide for other doctors, Roberts, a recognised expert in difficult
diagnoses, has published a lengthy series of case studies, Aspartame
Disease: an ignored epidemic (Sunshine Sentinel Press), in which he
meticulously details his treatment of 1,200 aspartame-sensitive individuals,
or 'reactors', encountered in his own practice. Following accepted medical
procedure for detecting sensitivities to foods, Roberts had his patients
remove aspartame from their diets.
With nearly two thirds of reactors,
symptoms began to improve within days of removing aspartame,
and improvements were maintained
as long as aspartame was kept out of their diet.

This book focuses on the first 1,200 aspartame reactors in the author's data
base. These persons include the following:

* 188 private patients and other individuals who were personally
interviewed.
* Complainants who described their aspartame-asssociated reactions to
Aspartame Victims and Their Friends (295),
The Community Nutrition Institute (68), and
Dr. Woodrow Monte of Arizona State University (28)
* The remainded supplied details of their reactions to the author or to
Mission Possible, a volunteer consumer organization (Chapter I). Of this
group, 697 (58%) completed the 9-page survey questionaire (Section 4).

page 80: A chemist who developed migraine from certain foods and
additives performed six double-blind studies on himself.
He found that as little as 4.0 mg aspartame in a capsule
predictably induced headache (Strong 2000)
[ This dose is only 2% of a diet soda. ] ]

Roberts' case studies parallel much of what was revealed in the FDA's report
on adverse reactions to aspartame -- that toxicity often reveals itself
through central nervous system disorders and compromised immunity.

His casework shows that aspartame toxicity can mimic the symptoms of and/or
worsen several diseases that fall into these broad categories (see the box
above).

Case studies, especially a large series like this, address some of the
issues surrounding real-world use in a way that laboratory studies never
can; and the conclusions that can be drawn from such observations aren't
just startling, they are also potentially highly significant.

In fact, Roberts believes that one of the major problems with
aspartame research has been the continued over-emphasis
on laboratory studies.
This has meant that the input of concerned independent physicians
and other interested persons, especially consumers,
is 'reflexively discounted as "anecdotal"'.

Many of the diseases listed by Roberts fall into the category of medicine's
'mystery diseases' -- conditions with no clear aetiology and few effective
cures. And while no one is suggesting that aspartame is the single cause of
such diseases, Roberts' research suggests that some people diagnosed with,
for example, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's or chronic fatigue syndrome may
end up on a regimen of potentially harmful drugs that could have been
avoided if they simply stopped ingesting aspartame-laced products.

Roberts' research suggests that some people diagnosed with, for example,
multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's or chronic-fatigue syndrome may end up on a
regimen of potentially harmful drugs that could have been avoided if they
simply stopped ingesting aspartame

PHENYLALANINE

The essential amino acid phenylalanine comprises 50 per cent of aspartame,
In people with the genetic disorder, phenylketonuria (PKU), the liver cannot
metabolise phenylalanine, causing it to build up in the blood and tissues.

Chronically high levels of phenylalanine and some of its breakdown products
can cause significant neurological problems, which is why foods and
beverages containing aspartame must carry a warning for PKU sufferers.

But according to Dr HJ Roberts, sensitivity to aspartame is not limited to
PKU sufferers.
PKU carriers -- people who inherited the gene for the disorder
but do not themselves have the condition
(around 2 per cent of the general population) --
are also more prone to adverse effects.

In Roberts' data there is also a high incidence of aspartame reactions
among the close relatives of patients who cannot tolerate aspartame.

Furthermore, there is evidence that ingesting aspartame,
especially along with carbohydrates,
can lead to excess levels of phenylalanine in the brain
even among those not affected by PKU.

Athough phenylalanine is sometimes used as a treatment for depression,
excessive amounts in the brain can cause levels of the mood regulator
serotonin to decrease,
making depression more serious or likely.

Build-up of phenylalanine in the brain can also worsen schizophrenia
or make individuals more susceptible to seizures.

Moreover, decrease in serotonin levels can result in carbohydrate craving.
This could explain aspartame's lack of effectiveness as a diet aid.

DKP

DKP is a breakdown product of phenylalanine that forms when
aspartame-containing liquids are stored for prolonged periods.

In animal experiments it has produced
brain tumours,
uterine polyps and
changes in blood cholesterol.

Before the FDA approved aspartame, the amount of DKP
in our diets was essentially zero.

So no claim of DKP's safety can be accepted as genuine
until good-quality long- term studies have been performed.

No such studies have been done.

ASPARTIC ACID

Aspartic acid (also known as aspartate) is a non-essential amino acid that
comprises 40 per cent of aspartame.

In the brain, it functions as a neurotransmitter -- facilitating the
transfer of information from one nerve cell (neuron) to another.

Both human and animal experiments have demonstrated
a significant spike in blood-plasma levels of aspartate
after the administration of aspartame in liquids.

Humans are five times more sensitive to the effects of aspartic acid
(as well as glutamic acid, found in MSG) than rodents,
and 20 times more sensitive than monkeys,
because we concentrate these excitatory amino acids
in our blood at much higher levels and for a longer period of time.

Aspartic acid has a cumulative harmful effect on the endocrine and
reproductive systems.

Several animal experiments have shown that excitotoxins
can penetrate the placental barrier and reach the foetus.

In addition, as levels of aspartic acid rise in the body so do levels of the
key neurotransmitter norepinephrine (also known as noradrenaline),
a 'stress hormone' that affects parts of the human brain where attention and
impulsivity are controlled.
Excessive norepinephrine is associated with symptoms
such as anxiety, agitation and mania.

METHANOL

Methanol (wood alcohol) comprises 10 per cent of aspartame.
[ Exactly, 11 % by weight ]
It is a deadly poison that is liberated from aspartame
at temperatures in excess of 86 Fahrenheit (30 centigrade) --
for instance, during storage or inside the human body.

The US Environmental Protection Agency considers methanol a
'cumulative poison due to the low rate of excretion once it is absorbed',
meaning that even small amounts in aspartame-containing foods can build up
over time in the body.

The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision disorders,
including misty or blurry vision, retinal damage and blindness.

The EPA tightly controls methanol exposure, allowing only very minute levels
to be present in foods or in environmental exposures.

But Blaylock says:
'The level allowed in NutraSweet is seven times the amount that the EPA will
allow anyone else to use.'

FORMALDEHYDE

The methanol absorbed from aspartame is converted to formaldehyde in the
liver. Formaldehyde is a neurotoxin and known carcinogen.

It causes retinal damage and birth defects,
interferes with DNA replication,
and has been shown to cause squamous-cell carcinoma,
a form of skin cancer, in animals.

Several human studies have found that chronic, low-level formaldehyde
exposure has been linked with a variety of symptoms,
including headaches, fatigue, chest tightness, dizziness,
nausea, poor concentration and seizures.

[ Fully 11% of aspartame is methanol --
1,120 mg aspartame in 2 L diet soda, almost six 12-oz cans,
gives 123 mg methanol (wood alcohol).
If 30% of the methanol is turned into formaldehyde,
the amount of formaldehyde is 18 times the USA EPA limit
for daily formaldehyde in drinking water, 2 mg in 2 L water.

K.E. McMartin and T.R. Tephly, authors of many pro-aspartame studies, in
Biochemical Pharmacology (1979) remarked, "It is now generally accepted
that the toxicity of methanol is due to the formation of toxic metabolites,
either formaldehyde or formic acid." They put damage doses of methanol
into the stomachs of three monkeys, and, using insensitive tests, found no
formaldehyde in many tissues-- except for a single datum in the midbrain,
1.5 times the detection limit. They did report widespread accumulation of
formic acid in five tissues. The use of inadequate tests is common in
industry research that is funded to claim the safety of profitable toxins.
Since then, industry scientists have been very wary of doing studies on
primates, which all too easily show the dangers to humans.....

Monkeys B and C were normal, not extra vulnerable to methanol, and were
given 3,000 mg/kg methanol, and samples taken at 18 hr. Formaldehyde was
detected only in the blood of Monkey B, while formate was found in 8 and 10,
respectively, of the 10 fluid and tissue samples in Monkeys B and C. For
instance, the lowest value of formate, except for zero-time blood, for each
monkey was in the midbrain, 2.16 mmol/kg for Monkey B (24 times the
detection limit for the chromatropic acid method) and 1.02 mmol/kg (1.3
times the detection for the dimedon method) for Monkey C. This shows
accumulation of formate in liver, kidney, optic nerve, cerebrum, and
midbrain. ]

Comment, page 49

TIME FOR ACTION

The story of aspartame is the story of the triumph of corporate might over
scientific rigour.

It shines a spotlight on the archaic and unbalanced procedure
for approving food additives.

We ingest food additives daily,
yet their approval does not require the same scientific thoroughness
as drug approval; and, unlike drugs,
there is no requirement for surveillance of adverse effects that
crop up once the additive is in use.

Approval does not involve looking at what people are already eating and
whether the proposed substance will interact with other additives.

Nor does it take into account whether the additive exacerbates damage
caused by other aspects of the modern lifestyle (for instance,
the neurological damage caused by pesticide ingestion or exposure).

Nor does it look for subtle chronic effects (for instance, the gradual
build-up of methanol in the body with regular aspartame ingestion).

There are other problems. Most studies into aspartame are animal studies,
which are notoriously difficult to relate to humans.

So why bother performing them in the first place?
The answer is, manufacturers and regulators use animal research
as a double-edged sword.
If an animal study reveals no evidence of harm, the manufacturer
can use it to support its case.

If it reveals harm, however,
the manufacturer is free to flip-flop into the argument
that the results of animal studies are inconclusive in relation to humans.

Faced with inconclusive evidence regulators will always
erron the side of the manufacturer,
who has after all demonstrated proper bureaucratic procedure
by funding and submitting its animal tests for consideration.

The approval process for any substance that humans put in their mouths on
a daily basis should be based on solid human data and on the precautionary
principle when such data is not available.

But, as it stands, the regulation of food additives in the US, the UK
and elsewhere leaves the burden of proof of harm on average people,
despite the fact that most of us are either too detached or too timid to
complain or simply don't have the energy to take on multinational
corporations.

The history of aspartame is all the more remarkable because of the number of
motivated people who have refused to accept the mantra 'if it's approved by
the government it must be safe'.

Nearly every piece of independent research
shows the outrage of these people,
who have had to withstand threats of litigation
and being vilified in the media as 'hysterics', is justified.

After 30 years of aspartame's commercial success, it would be easy to
conclude it is too late to act.

And yet earlier this year hundreds of products were swept off
supermarket shelves on the chance that they might have contained
minuscule amounts of a potentially carcinogenic dye, Sudan 1.
No studies existed to show that Sudan 1 could cause cancer in humans.
The likelihood of any one person's exposure to Sudan 1 being high enough to
produce a tumour was minute.
Nevertheless, on the basis of the precautionary principle, action was taken.

Aspartame is not a life-saving drug.

It is not even a very effective diet aid, as shown by widespread obesity in
the West.

Until the many concerns about it have been examined in
'corporate- neutral', large-scale, long-term, randomised,
double-blind, placebo-controlled human trials
(the gold standard of scientific proof)
it should be taken out of our food.

Pages 50-51

SUCRALOSE: LIFE AFTER ASPARTAME:
Aspartame should never have reached the marketplace. But even if the
authorities were to remove it from sale tomorrow, how much faith should
consumers place in the other artificial sweeteners on the market?
PAT THOMAS REPORTS:

There is not a single artificial sweetener on the market that can claim,
beyond all reasonable doubt, to be safe for humans to consume.

Saccharin, cyclamate and acesulfame-K have all been show to cause cancer in
animals.

Even the family of relatively benign sweeteners known as polyols, such as
sorbitol and mannitol, can cause gastric upset if eaten in quantity.

NutraSweet believes that its new aspartame-based sweetener, Neotame, is
'revolutionary'; but, seemingly, it is only a more stable version of
aspartame.

This leaves the market wide open for sucralose.
Sucralose, sold commercially as Splenda, was discovered in 1976 by
researchers working for British sugar refiner Tate & Lyle.
Four years later, Tate & Lyle joined forces with Johnson & Johnson
to develop and commercialise sucralose under the auspices of a new company,
McNeil Specialty Products (now called McNeil Nutritionals).
Sucralose has been approved by more than 60 regulatory bodies
throughout the world, and is now in more than 3,000 products worldwide.
In the US, Coca-Cola has developed a new diet drink
sweetened with Splenda,
and other major soft drink manufacturers are expected to follow suit.

Splenda has had to rethink its slogan
"made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar"
in the wake of a heated US legal challenge and a recent ruling by the
New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority
that said it confused and misled consumers.
While it is true that sugar, or sucrose,
is one of the starting materials for sucralose,
its chemical structure is significantly different from that of sucrose.

In a complex chemical process, the sucrose is processed with, among other
things, phosgene (a chemical-warfare agent used during WWI,
now a common intermediary in the production of plastics, pesticides and
dyes),
and three atoms of chlorine are selectively substituted for three hydroxyl
(hydrogen and oxygen) groups naturally attached to the sugar molecule.

This process produces
1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside
(also known as trichlorogalactosucrose or sucralose),
a new chemical substance which Tate & Lyle calls a
'water-soluble chlorocarbohydrate'.
Accepting Tate & Lyle's classification of sucralose as a chlorocarbohydrate
at face value raises reasonable concerns about its suitability as a food
additive. Chlorinated carbohydrates belong to a class of chemicals known as
chlorocarbons.

This class of chemicals includes
a number of notorious human and environmental poisons,
including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);
aliphatic chlorinated carbohydrates;
aromatic chlorinated carbohydrates such as DDT;
organochlorine pesticides such as aldrin and dieldrin; and
aromatic chlorinated ethers such as polychlorinated dioxins (PCDD) and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF).

Most of the synthetic chlorinated compounds that we ingest, such as the
pesticide residues in our food and water, bio-accumulate slowly in the body;
and many cause developmental problems in the womb or are carcinogenic.
How do we know that sucralose is any different?

Tate & Lyle insists that sucralose passes through the body virtually intact,
and that the tight molecular bond between the chlorine atoms and the sugar
molecule results in a very stable and versatile product that is not
metabolised in the body for calories.

This doesn't mean, however,
that sucralose is not metabolised in the body at all,
and critics like HJ Roberts argue that, during storage and in the body,
sucralose breaks down into among other things 1,6 dichlorofructose,
a chlorinated compound that has not been adequately tested in humans.

Tate & Lyle maintains that sucralose and its breakdown products have been
extensively tested and proven safe for human consumption.
The company notes that in seeking approval from the
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
McNeil Specialty Products submitted more than 110 studies
that attested to the safety of sucralose.

BUT CAN CONSUMERS TRUST THIS RESEARCH DATA?

The vast majority of studies submitted to the FDA were unpublished
animal and laboratory studies performed by Tate & Lyle itself,
and therefore liable to charges of potentially unacceptable bias.

Only five involved human subjects,
and these were short-term, often single-dose, studies that
clearly could not adequately reflect the expected real-world usage of
sucralose.

After questions were raised by the FDA about the safety of sucralose for
diabetics, and prior to approval, a further five human studies were
eventually submitted.

On 1 April 1998 the FDA approved sucralose for limited uses;
one year later it approved it as a general-purpose sweetener.

Some questions about sucralose's safety, arising from the data submitted to
the FDA, remain unanswered.
These studies included unsettling findings about animals, which,
when exposed to high doses of sucralose, experienced:

§ Shrunken thymus and spleen;

§ Enlarged liver and kidneys; and

§ Reduced growth rate in adults and newborns.

In the FDA's 'final-rule' report, several of the studies submitted by McNeil
were found to have 'inconclusive' results or were 'insufficient' to draw
firm conclusions from them. These included:

§ A test that examined the clastogenic activity
(ability to break chromosomes apart) of sucralose,
and a test that looked for chromosomal aberrations
in human lymphocytes exposed to sucralose';

§ A series of three animal genotoxicity studies; and

§ Laboratory studies using lymphoma tissue from mice which showed that
sucralose was weakly mutagenic' (capable of causing cellular mutations).
Clastogenic, genotoxic and mutagenic substances are all potential risk
factors in the development of cancer.

In addition to these, three studies that looked at very specific
'anti-fertility' effects of sucralose and its breakdown products,
especially with regard to sperm production were also deemed insufficient;
this is particularly worrying, since other 'chlorosugars', such as
6-chloroglucose,
are currently being studied as anti-spermatogenic drugs.

Furthermore, the administration observed that McNeil had failed to explain
satisfactorily a reduction in body weight seen in animals fed sucralose and
that 'additional study data were needed to resolve this issue'.

Ironically for a product that 'tastes like sugar', McNeil argued that weight
loss was due to the 'reduced palatability of sucralose-containing diets'.

FDA reviewers also found that at mid to high doses there was a trend towards
'decreasing white blood cell and lymphocyte counts with increasing dose
levels of sucralose'.

This was dismissed as having no 'statistical significance' by the FDA;
in healthy animals and humans this may be so,
but what happens when already immune-compromised individuals ingest
sucralose?

Tate & Lyle says that any lingering concerns about sucralose are unfounded
and that only a small amount, 15-20 per cent, of sucralose is
absorbed and broken down in the human gut.
[ This is an alarming amount of absorption.
Over the last three years, I have noticed about a dozen people who have
joined the http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/ support group,
now 931 members, who report reacting to both aspartame and to sucralose. ]

The rest passes through the body unmetabolised
and is excreted in urine and faeces.
This in itself provokes important questions.

§ What happens to sucralose that is flushed down the toilet? Does it remain
stable or react with other substances (for instance, the chlorine used in
water-treatment plants, or microbial life) to form new compounds?

§ Is sucralose or any resulting chemical compound it may form safe for the
environment? Is it harmful to aquatic life or wild animals?

§ Will sucralose begin to appear in our water supply, in the way that
certain drugs have, silently increasing our exposure to it? And would that
increased exposure be safe?

PUBLISH AND BE SUED

In the face of emerging public criticism, lawyers for Tate & Lyle are
already gearing up for a battle.
According to attorney James Turner, a key player in the aspartame drama,
'There's going to be a huge fight about Splenda in the next few months.
[Tate & Lyle's] lawyers are already on the case
trying to shut everybody up'.

It's a tactic that worked well for Monsanto, which certainly used legal
pressure against anyone who criticised NutraSweet.

Recently, the publisher of the local newspaper the Brighton Argus
considered it prudent to publish an apology composed by Tate & Lyle
(or their lawyers) or face a legal action for defamation and loss of sales
after printing an article suggesting that sucralose was harmful to humans.

Tate & Lyle's first high-profile victim, however,
was www.mercola.com (http://www.mercola.com) -- one of the world's
most visited internet health sites.
Run by Dr Joseph Mercola,
the site has been a vocal critic of sucralose for years.
Instead of carrying freely available information on sucralose
that might stimulate spirited public debate,
it now carries the following message:
'Attorneys acting on behalf of the manufacturers of sucralose, Tate & Lyle
Plc, based in London, England, have requested that the information contained
on this page not be made available to internet users in England.'

At this point, concerned consumers should be asking themselves several
questions:

Does the story of sucralose sound familiar?

If sucralose is safe beyond any reasonable doubt, why is there
such a fervent need to suppress any criticism of it?

Finally, whom do such tactics really serve?

Do they serve the consumer and the principles of choice, information, safety
and redress?

Or do they serve the corporate machine and its need to keep generating
profits without taking responsibility for the human cost of doing so?
************************************************** ***********

[ Comments by Rich Murray are in square bracketts. Only 4 of the 59
citations were to studies published in open mainstream, peer-reviewed
research journals.

At the end of this post I provide reviews about flaws in research sponsored
by vested interests. Surely, vested interests have much to gain by having
their research qualify for mainstream research journals. ]

I have been recommending sucralose for six years as a much safer alternative
to aspartame. However, there are substantial deficiencies in the research
for the safety of sucralose, including disturbing findings in animal
studies, reviewed officially in 2000, as well as reasonable doubts about any
research controlled by vested interests.

This weekend I found a large, competent website by Mr. Mark J. Yannone, a
programmer, who in email on 2001.01.22 reported that his seizures were cured
by giving up aspartame. Aspartame and sucralose are only a small fraction
of the issues listed on his voluminous site.

http://www.foodanddiet.com/NewFiles/splenda-story-list.html lists an
ever-growing archive, now 236 reports in a year, of posts about symptoms
from sucralose -- about 10% of the posts said they had no problems.
The sophistication, size, organization, and clarity of this site
far exceeds what aspartame activists offered six years ago,
as does the amount of user information.

Here are the first titles:

'I woke up with my very first migraine ever...
There has never been any negative side effect...
I have been headache free for two weeks now...
Using Splenda for a year now with no problem...
Uncontrollable bouts with gas...
I'll continue with the Splenda...
Hot and cold flashes, but also depressed for no reason...
I plan to throw out the entire box...
It IS the sucralose making me ill...
At no point would I have ever put two-and-two together...
We recently changed our way of eating...
I can relate to the symptoms I have read...
I know I feel better now, and I know how I was feeling then...
Splenda was like a kick in the stomach...
I felt so terrible I was not even able to go to work...
My focus seems to be returning...
I'm still in awe of my experience...
I have had a whopping headache for hours now...
I had one encounter with the use of Splenda...
Splenda is not so splendid...
I truly cannot attribute negative side effects to the sweetener...
I can't believe that I have been poisoning myself ...
I also stopped losing weight after adding sucralose...
I found myself spinning into a dark depression...
I started feeling "not myself"...
I have only used Splenda a few times...
I noticed incredible fatigue and sleepiness...
I am not happy with the results...
I didn't even realize it might be the Splenda ...
I had the worst feeling...
Two weeks ago, my wife decided to use Splenda ...
What a terrible mistake!...
I have had no side effects at all...
I decided to try Splenda again...
I wanted to pass along my story about sucralose...
I started using Splenda in small doses..."

"Based upon information supplied to us by our visitors, we note the
following possible side effects from consumption of sucralose:

I notice that these are also common symptoms reported by aspartame reactors.

He provides these links:

http://www.holisticmed.com/splenda/

http://proliberty.com/observer/20031112.htm

http://www.laleva.cc/food/splenda.htm

http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/N243.html

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/sugarfree/messages/56420.html

"It should be noted that little positive information will be found on these
websites. If you are interested in reviewing the benefits of Splenda, we
recommend a visit to their website at http://www.splenda.com "

Finally, an intripid and much published team in Japan has found DNA damage
in 8 tissues from single non-lethal doses of aspartame (near-significant
high levels of DNA damage in 5 tissues) and many other additives in groups
of just 4 mice:

'...Two antioxidants (butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated
hydroxytoluene (BHT)), three fungicides (biphenyl, sodium
o-phenylphenol, and thiabendazole), and four sweeteners (sodium
cyclamate, saccharin, sodium saccharin, and sucralose) also induced DNA
damage in gastrointestinal organs." [ While aspartame had high levels,
close to statistical significance -- testing more mice very likely
would achieve the significant level of proof. ]

We determined the genotoxicity of 39 chemicals currently in use as food
additives.
They fell into six categories-dyes, color fixatives and
preservatives, preservatives, antioxidants, fungicides, and sweeteners.

We tested groups of four male ddY mice once orally with each additive at
up to 0.5xLD(50) or the limit dose (2000mg/kg) and performed the comet
assay on the glandular stomach, colon, liver, kidney, urinary bladder, lung,
brain, and bone marrow 3 and 24 h after treatment.

Of all the additives, dyes were the most genotoxic.
Amaranth, Allura Red, New Coccine, Tartrazine, Erythrosine, Phloxine, and
Rose Bengal induced dose-related DNA damage in the glandular stomach,
colon,and/or urinary bladder.
All seven dyes induced DNA damage in the gastrointestinal organs at a low
dose (10 or 100mg/kg).

Among them, Amaranth, Allura Red, New Coccine, and Tartrazine induced
DNA damage in the colon at close to the acceptable daily intakes (ADIs).

The Ecologist is the world's most respected environmental affairs magazine.
Each month we examine the connection between a wide range of subjects.
Whether it's food, war, politics, pharmaceuticals, farming, toxic chemicals,
corporate fraud, mass media or supermarkets, the ecologist challenges
conventional thinking and empowers readers to tackle global issues on a
local scale.
For 35 years The Ecologist has helped set environmental and political
agendas around the world by focusing on the root causes, not just the
after-effects, of current events.
With thought-provoking, entertaining features by leading experts; topical
debates and world-class photojournalism, The Ecologist is an indispensable
guide for anyone re-thinking their basic assumptions
about the world we live in.

Each issue of The Ecologist includes:
Compelling investigations from leading authors and experts
Behind the label: Monthly examination of what's really in the name brand
products we've come to rely on
The latest news, findings and "greenwash" from countries around the world
No-holds-barred comment and analyses of social and commercial trends
Topical debates
Notes on essential reading, surfing and listening
Compelling stories the mainstream press won't print
Free Green Pages in every issue: 32 pages of listings and solutions about
how to make a difference in your daily life

We're happy to receive feedback, ideas and your thoughts on all the issues
we cover.

The Calorie Control Council, established in 1966, is an international
non-profit association representing the low-calorie and reduced-fat food and
beverage industry.
Today it represents 60 manufacturers and suppliers of low-calorie, low-fat
and light foods and beverages, including the manufacturers and suppliers of
more than a dozen different dietary sweeteners, fat replacers and other
low-calorie ingredients.

" Upon digestion, aspartame breaks down into three components (aspartic
acid, phenylalanine and a small amount of methanol), which are then absorbed
into the blood and used in normal body processes.

Neither aspartame nor its components accumulates in the body.

These components are used in the body in the same ways as when they are also
derived from common foods.

Further, the amounts of these components from aspartame are small compared
to the amounts from other food sources. For example, a serving of no-fat
milk provides about 6 times more phenylalanine and 13 times more aspartic
acid compared to an equivalent amount of diet beverage sweetened 100% with
aspartame. Likewise, a serving of tomato juice provides about 6 times more
methanol compared to an equivalent amount of diet beverage with aspartame. "

http://www.kellencompany.com/lnabors.html

LYN O'BRIEN NABORS Vice President
Lyn O'Brien Nabors serves as Vice President, Research Services and Account
Executive for The Kellen Company. She has more than 23 years of experience
in the association management industry and directs the activities of two
client associations.
Lyn supervises the research function of The Kellen Company and is
responsible for the coordination of scientific programs for several client
associations.
She is involved in presenting comment on various food ingredients to
scientific and regulatory agencies and new low-calorie ingredient approvals
and coordinated activities resulting in the removal of the saccharin warning
label requirement.
She works closely with clients on industry labeling issues and is
responsible for the development and updating of the company's food industry
labeling manual.
Lyn is editor of three editions of Alternative Sweeteners, a comprehensive
textbook providing fundamental scientific and technical information on a
broad range of sweeteners.
She also has authored a number of book chapters and numerous journal
articles on low-calorie foods and beverages, sweeteners and fat replacers.

Lyn is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Kentucky with a degree
in Public Health.
Prior to joining The Kellen Company in 1980, Lyn worked for several years in
the scientific field performing both laboratory and clinical research.

She is a member of the Institute of Food Technologists, serving three years
as an IFT Scientific Lecturer, and the American Chemical Society.
She currently serves as Executive Vice President of the Calorie Control
Council and President of the International Food Additives Council.

It is commendable that Carakostas mentions the core problem, albeit
disparagingly, and overlaid with multiple untruths: "During digestion,
aspartame yields a very small amount of methanol-- as do many other food
substances. The body converts this methanol to formaldehyde, which is
instantly converted to formate. Formate is quickly eliminated as carbon
dioxide and water."

Carakostas deceptively make claims, unsupported by research, that the amount
of methanol from aspartame is "very small", that many foods release as much,
and that little of the inevitable formaldehyde or formic acid toxic products
accumulate in body tissues. This executive, with a PhD in veterinary
science, is deceiving people about very serious multiple toxicities.

Thus, there is evidence here cited from 1973 to 2004 that research and
reviews by immense vested interests about aspartame must be scrutinized with
the greatest skepticism. The greatest Internet myth about aspartame is
this: "Aspartame is the most thoroughly tested food additive in history."
************************************************** ***********

Dark wines and liquors, as well as aspartame, provide similar levels of
methanol, above 100 mg daily, for long-term heavy users. Methanol is
inevitably largely turned into formaldehyde, and thence largely into formic
acid. It is the major cause of the dreaded symptoms of "next morning"
hangover.

Since no adaquate data has ever been published on the exact disposition of
toxic metabolites in specific tissues in humans of the 11% methanol
component of aspartame, the many studies on morning-after hangover from the
methanol impurity in alcohol drinks are the main available resource to date.

Fully 11% of aspartame is methanol-- 1,120 mg aspartame in 2 L diet soda,
almost six 12-oz cans, gives 123 mg methanol (wood alcohol). If 30% of
the methanol is turned into formaldehyde, the amount of formaldehyde is 18
times the USA EPA limit for daily formaldehyde in drinking water, 2 mg in 2
L water.

Aspartame is made of phenylalanine (50% by weight) and aspartic acid (39%),
both ordinary amino acids, bound loosely together by methanol (wood alcohol,
11%). The readily released methanol from aspartame is within hours turned
by the liver into formaldehyde and then formic acid, both potent, cumulative
toxins.

Thrasher (2001): "The major difference is that the Japanese demonstrated
the incorporation of FA and its metabolites into the placenta and fetus.
The quantity of radioactivity remaining in maternal and fetal tissues
at 48 hours was 26.9% of the administered dose." [ Ref. 14-16 ]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/859
Roberts: the life work of a brilliant clinician: aspartame toxicity:
Murray 2002.08.02 rmforall

A very detailed, highly credible account of the dubious approval process for
aspartame in July, 1981 is part of the just released two-hour documentary
"Sweet Misery, A Poisoned World: An Industry Case Study of a Food Supply
In Crisis" by Cori Brackett: cori@soundandfuryproductions.com
http://www.soundandfuryproductions.com/ 520-624-9710
2301 East Broadway, Suite 111 Tucson, AZ 85719

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1141
Nurses Health Study can quickly reveal the extent of aspartame (methanol,
formaldehyde, formic acid) toxicity: Murray 2004.11.21 rmforall
[ Any scientist can get access to this data for free by submitting a proper
research proposal. No one has admitted mining the extensive data on diet
soda use and many symtoms for decades for about 100,000 nurses. ]
************************************************** ***********

www.aspartame.org (http://www.aspartame.org)

The Calorie Control Council, established in 1966, is an international
non-profit association representing the low-calorie and reduced-fat food and
beverage industry.
Today it represents 60 manufacturers and suppliers of low-calorie, low-fat
and light foods and beverages, including the manufacturers and suppliers of
more than a dozen different dietary sweeteners, fat replacers and other
low-calorie ingredients.

" Upon digestion, aspartame breaks down into three components (aspartic
acid, phenylalanine and a small amount of methanol), which are then absorbed
into the blood and used in normal body processes.

Neither aspartame nor its components accumulates in the body.

These components are used in the body in the same ways as when they are also
derived from common foods.

Further, the amounts of these components from aspartame are small compared
to the amounts from other food sources. For example, a serving of no-fat
milk provides about 6 times more phenylalanine and 13 times more aspartic
acid compared to an equivalent amount of diet beverage sweetened 100% with
aspartame. Likewise, a serving of tomato juice provides about 6 times more
methanol compared to an equivalent amount of diet beverage with aspartame. "

http://www.kellencompany.com/lnabors.html

LYN O'BRIEN NABORS Vice President LNabors@kellencompany.com
Lyn O'Brien Nabors serves as Vice President, Research Services and Account
Executive for The Kellen Company.
She has more than 23 years of experience in the association management
industry and directs the activities of two client associations.
Lyn supervises the research function of The Kellen Company and is
responsible for the coordination of scientific programs for several client
associations.
She is involved in presenting comment on various food ingredients to
scientific and regulatory agencies and new low-calorie ingredient approvals
and coordinated activities resulting in the removal of the saccharin warning
label requirement.
She works closely with clients on industry labeling issues and is
responsible for the development and updating of the company's food industry
labeling manual.
Lyn is editor of three editions of Alternative Sweeteners, a comprehensive
textbook providing fundamental scientific and technical information on a
broad range of sweeteners.
She also has authored a number of book chapters and numerous journal
articles on low-calorie foods and beverages, sweeteners and fat replacers.

Lyn is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Kentucky with a degree
in Public Health.
Prior to joining The Kellen Company in 1980, Lyn worked for several years in
the scientific field performing both laboratory and clinical research.

She is a member of the Institute of Food Technologists, serving three years
as an IFT Scientific Lecturer, and the American Chemical Society.
She currently serves as Executive Vice President of the Calorie Control
Council and President of the International Food Additives Council.

What Doctors Don't Tell You is one of the few information services that can
justifiably claim to solve people's health problems - and even save lives.We
tell you in plain language what works, what doesn't and what may harm you in
both orthodox and alternative medicine so that you can make informed
choices.Our information is available as an in-depth monthly subscription
health bulletin, as a series of books, manuals and CDs, and as a searchable
information database. We also provide a free e-mail news service.

What Doctors Don't Tell You first appeared as a newsletter at the end of
1989. It grew from a sense of frustration with conventional medicine, and a
desire to tell others about its short-comings and dangers.
It was started by award-winning journalist Lynne McTaggart and her husband,
Bryan Hubbard, also a senior journalist.

Lynne had suffered from a mysterious illness for around five years, during
which time she had passed through a medical odyssey of conventional,
alternative and strange treatments. She encountered treatments that either
didn't work or were dangerous.
Before launching What Doctors Don't Tell You, Lynne had worked closely with
the legendary Dr Robert Mendelsohn in America, who was one of the first
doctors to blow the whistle on medical practices.

Since its launch all those years ago, What Doctors Don't Tell You has been
acknowledged as one of the world's very best health newsletters by several
commentators, including leading publisher and health campaigner Burton
Goldberg, leading holistic healer Dr John Diamond and the Holistic Health
Library.

It accepts no donations from government bodies, industry groups or
companies, but relies for its survival and success only from the
subscription income it receives from its many thousands of subscribers
around the world.

Its hallmark has been its in-depth research, and hard-won information of a
quality that can change lives for the better. It's been cited in law courts,
it's been used to encourage doctors to change their treatments, and our
filing cabinets are full of testimonials from thousands of people whose
lives have been helped by our information.

We've also published around 35 books on health,
we run regular workshops and conferences, and -- best of all --
evrything we've ever written is available
on this website for you to search.

What Doctors Don't Tell You is based in London (in Wimbledon, where the
tennis comes from). It's also part of a public company (Conatus plc), which
is listed on the OFEX exchange in London, where its shares are traded.

CONNECTIONS THAT MAY HELP YOU
Here are some connections we've made in the last few months:
*Crohn's disease may be linked to cow's milk
*The prostate cancer test can fail. . .if the man has just had sex!
*Hypertension (high blood pressure) may be triggered by lead from the
environment
*Steroids can cause serious side-effects after just one dose, and not only
after long-term use as doctors maintain
*90% of hysterectomies are unnecessary
*Cholesterol-lowering drugs may trigger cancer 30 years on
*Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) - Cot death - may be linked to low
levels of iodine in the mother
*Major antidepressants can cause tooth decay
*Low-dose aspirin can reduce the risk of certain cancers if taken long term
*Epilepsy is linked to diet and childhood vaccines
*Soya products can lower your cholesterol levels better than animal fats
products
*Women who take zinc while pregnant will produce bigger babies
*Foods that can fight depression naturally
*Allergies are more likely to make you fat than just over-eating
*Older people who eat an orange a day will reduce their risk of a heart
attack by 10%
*High cholesterol could be one of the great medical red herrings of the 20th
Century

THE WDDTY CHALLENGE

Whatever the complaint, we bet you know of people
who've come off worse from an encounter with medicine.
It might be a neighbour, or someone you often
bump into at the local store. Ever since they started some drug or
treatment, their health has either deteriorated, or they've been complaining
about symptoms they never had before.

We're not usually gambling people, but we say "we bet" because we've never
yet met anybody who can't think of someone who this has happened to.

And we'd like to make another bet with you! We reckon on that virtually none
of these people was told that they might suffer these side-effects. (We
know, because one of the saddest comments we hear from victims is: "If only
we had known...")

What our members say
Here're some of their comments (they're all genuine and the originals can be
viewed at our offices):
"What Doctors contains just the sort of medical information I was looking
for, and which is very diffifcult to obtain elsewhere" - P.E., Surrey

"As a medical doctor, I am really pleased with What Doctors..., my sincere
good wishes for the special work that you are doing" - Dr. M.S., Beirut

"I had a reasonable knowledge of the possible pitfalls of drug therapy, but
your wide ranging well- written and easy-to-understand information has
heightened my awareness of this most important subject and you are
performing a much-needed and vital service to us all" - M.G., Bedfordshire

"Instead of suffering from asthma, unwillingly forced into the last ditch
resort of taking steroids in order to have any sort of liveable life, I am
virtually free of it and, to boot, have lost a surplus two stone. This is
all attributable to your informative publications" - MBC, P-B., Cornwall

"Recently my mother-in-law was diagnosed with breast cancer. I cannot tell
you how encouraging you were to the whole family... She is faring well and
confident she is making the right deci- sions thanks to your timely
advice" - J.B., Jersey

"It's brilliant" - D.R. Norfolk

OUR COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE

We've covered a wide range of illlnesses, treatments and drugs since we
began publishing seven years ago. Here's a better flavour of our coverage:

This is the html version of the file
http://www.curesmentalhealth.com/Articles/Non-Medical/100ways.pdf.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl
the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:SLQN-2MOYyoJ:www.curesmentalhealth.com/Articles/Non-Medical/100ways.pdf+%22What+Doctors+Don't+Tell+You+%22,+%2 2Pat+Thomas%22&hl=en

Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible
for its content.

While every care is taken in preparing this material, the publishers cannot
accept any responsibility for any damage or harm caused by any treatment,
advice or information contained in this publication. You should consult a
qualified practitioner before undertaking any treatment.

In celebration of the 100th issue of What Doctors Don't Tell You, we've
compiled what we consider the 100 most important pieces of advice we've
written over the years into a ready-reference guide to leading a
healthy life. In our view, this advice tends to run counter to what your
doctor tells you, but all our tips are backed up by solid medical evidence.
These include 50 general tips about diet, supplements, children, your
environment and also a final 10 suggestions for your spiritual health.
We also included five boxes of 10 tips apiece concerning
which medical practices are useless or downright dangerous.
Limited space has allowed only the briefest of summaries,
but we've listed the relevant back publications
(including those of WDDTY's sister publications PROOF! and Natural Parent),
for anyone who requires more information. Happy hundredth !
************************************************** ***********

As an anti-aspartame crusader for eight years, I am always pleased to see
published reports about the dangers of aspartame.

I have read a copy of Pat Thomas's long article about aspartame in the
recent issue of "The Ecologist."

Thomas's report has a lot of collected historical truth--and,I repeat, it is
always good to see truth in print so that more people can learn about
aspartame (Equal,NutraSweet.)

However, most of the article, wit no credit given, is taken word for word
from a piece written by written by lawyer and anti-aspartame crusader Jim
Turner. http://www.swankin-turner.com/hist.html

So,although, I appreciate Pat Thomas 'writing' about the lethal poison,
aspartame and "The Ecologist's" willingness to publish the truth, as a
researcher on aspartame, I must point out that it is not helpful to the
anti-aspartame movement when a writer uses something as fact that has not
been proven.

The following statement (one of the few that seem actually to be written by
Thomas) may be true, but there is only one reference to this ever in the
literature of aspartame. I suspect Thomas doesn't even know where that one
reference comes from.

A writer must have at least two verified references
to prove something as a fact.

Pat Thomas writes:

"Once upon a time, aspartame was listed by the Pentagon as a biochemical
warfare agent."

"Once upon a time"? What is this, a fairy tale? You can't just write this as
a fact, without proof or references. Show me the list.

The sole reference that aspartame might have been on a Pentagon list as a
biochemical warfare agent comes from a early (brilliant) article about
aspartame, "Nutrapoison", by Alex Constantine. And even Constantine's very
well documented piece has only one reference to this information-- from a
radio show done in Monterrey, CA by the late, great activist, Mae Brusell.

Most of us who write about aspartame do not use unsubstantiated evidence,
nor give unsupported information to journalists
who ask us for our expertise.
Writers include Mary Stoddard, founder of the Aspartame Consumer Safety
Network, in 1987 www.aspartamesafety.com (http://www.aspartamesafety.com) ,
Dr. Janet Hull www.sweetpoison.com (http://www.sweetpoison.com) ,
David Lawrence Dewey in his comprehensive article at
www.dldewey.com/asp.htm (http://www.dldewey.com/asp.htm) ,
Cori Brackett in her docu, "Sweet Misery" www.soundandfury.com (http://www.soundandfury.com) ,
endocrinologist, Dr. H.J. Roberts www.sunsentpress.com (http://www.sunsentpress.com) ,
neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock www.russellblaylockmd.com (http://www.russellblaylockmd.com) ,
Mark Gold www.holisticmed.com/aspartame (http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame) ,
Bryant Holman, list owner of the Aspartame Victim's Support Group
www.predidiotex.com/aspartame (http://www.predidiotex.com/aspartame)
and James Turner, the original author of the 'timeline' section of the piece.

Turner and Thomas, in "The Ecologist" both use the original manufacturer's
(GD Searle) own PR story about how aspartame was 'found' as a fact.
Aspartame is complicated molecular poison, and, in my reluctant expert
opinion, there is no way possible that it was discovered by accident, by Dr.
James Schlatter.

One question I have always asked, is: Why would any chemist be using wood
alcohol (methanol,10% of aspartame) to construct an ulcer drug or any other
drug, for that matter? Methanol is a known poison.

From Thomas's article:

"DECEMBER 1965

While working on an ulcer drug, a chemist at pharmaceutical manufacturer GD
Searle accidentally discovers aspartame, a substance that is 180 times
sweeter than sugar, yet has no calories."

Thomas, in the article, gives no reference as to where most of the
information comes from, totally ignoring any credit to Turner or journalists
such as Greg Gordon in his UPI investigation of aspartame, in 1996.

Looks like we need to stick with drinks with pure can sugar in it. All of these artificial sweeteners will kill you faster than sugar will. We just have to moderate how many sodas we drink.

greg

06-11-2008, 07:59 PM

These "scientific" posts are jokes. Of course when you feed a rat that weighs 1lb an ounce of aspartame a day as a staple of his diet he will have negative side effects.
That is equivalant of feeding a 200lb man 32lbs of sugar a day and expecting him to stay healthy!.